Dear
Professor (s) of Middle Eastern Studies in the United States of
America

I
would like to begin by greeting you with my traditional salutation:
Assalaam O Alekum – May Peace be with all of you.

This
is the first time I am taking the liberty of writing to you because a
sentence in your recent piece: The
new McCarthyism,
caught my eye and puzzled me enough to want to seek further
elucidation. Two inquiries into the subject follow as two open
letters to America's Academe; I would be much obliged with an
educative response that is both lucid and enlightening
to the public mind. Specifically, to my own humble plebeian
mind which remains puzzled by the profound intellectualism espoused
by modern day academics, who, while publicly wearing the lofty mantle
of Plato and Socrates in their academies, under even mild scrutiny
appear to be secretly carrying the burden of Nietzsche's superman
beneath their pious academic robe and their lofty “freedom of
the academe”.

Footnote
[*Editor's Note October 2013 This open letter was perhaps never
fully completed and never emailed to Dr. Juan Cole when first
composed in April-May 2005; certainly it was never published.
Serendipitously rediscovered in the author's archives in October
2013, and finding the incisive inquiry most pertinent even eight
years later, it is finally published, mostly AS IS, for what little
its worth before the mighty guns of Zionism. The reader can see that
the oppression has only gotten worse for the Palestinians, aided and
abetted as the criminal Jewish colonization and resettlement of
Palestine is by the brilliant American Academic in all its
confabulations. The footnotes,
unfortunately intermingled with the main text, are also left as is.
The citations in web-links are circa 2005 and may not be accessible
today. The author's subsequent works have penetrated deeper into the
rabbit hole of how the world of superman scholarship in the Western
academe craftily bows in silent omissions not only before the
presuppositions of Zion while playing dissent with it, but before all
presuppositions of the establishmentarian system: [1] see
The
Dying Songbird by Zahir Ebrahim
where the full gamut of respectable Western dissent, from Dr. Juan
Cole (light-moderate – the dissent-lite genre) to Dr. Noam
Chomsky (left – the radical genre) to Dr. Ron Paul (right –
the respectable genre), is situated in the toolkit of “democratic”
statecraft that requires illusions in as much necessity as its guns
and butter ; [2] see Dr. Juan Cole in Songbird
or Superman – You Decide!
; [3] see How many Jews does it take
to confuse me?, in: Pamphlet:
The Invisible House of Rothschild
; [4] see Vladimir Jabotinsky boldly defining the moral value
proposition of Zionism in his seminal 1923 article 'The Iron Wall',
in: Pamphlet:
How to Return to Palestine 2nd Edition
; [5] witness the ubiquitous
scholarly silence on to whom the infamous Balfour Declaration is
addressed in the diabolically most brilliant piece of treacherous
wording that gave the first 'legal cover' by the fiat of British
imperial power to the theft of Palestine, in the opening pages of the
same pamphlet (Ibid.) ; [6] understand soft Zionists, those who play
dissent with Zion while axiomatically holding on to the core value
propositions of Zionism, deconstructed in The
endless trail of red herrings
; [7] see the lofty moral claims to the mantle of Plato by the
Western academic who boldly claims responsibility as an intellectual
to tell the truth, dismantled in Responsibility
of Intellectuals – Redux
; [8] see the author's principled defence of Jewish American academic
Norm Finkelstein by separating the Zionist chaff from the Christian
American wheat in: Letter
to President DePaul U. On deconstructing the hullabaloo surrounding
Finkelstein's tenure, April 29, 2007
; [9] see the Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent brilliantly
choreographed by The Mighty Wurlitzer which
most eruditely runs circles around the
public mind, scrutinized in: A
Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer: Architecture of Modern Propaganda for
Psychological Warfare
; [10] and finally, to glean a perceptive understanding of why the
American academe only produces “likkha-parrha-jahils” to
willingly “United we stand” with the core axioms and key
presuppositions of the establishment no different
than the Third Reich's academe under Nazi Socialism, despite
America's plentiful Ivy Leagues and over 2000 industrious
universities and colleges from its brilliant sea to shining sea, see
The
Fable of the Bees: The Seduction of Science and Technology
.]

First
Inquiry Question

“When
I have taught the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the
University of Michigan, I have had fair numbers of Arab-Americans,
Muslim-Americans and Jewish-Americans in my class. My class
evaluations have overall been good to excellent, but I always have a
handful complaints from both sides. Some Arab-Americans blast me
for naively accepting key claims of Zionism when I argue for Israel's
right to exist.”
--- Juan Cole, The New McCarthyism, published April 23, 2005 by
Salon.com, http://commondreams.org/views05/0423-20.htm

It
is the last sentence above. Could you kindly elaborate on your
position by identifying the key claims for your arguments in support
of Zionism and Israel's right to exist on Palestinian territory, and
identify the key "values" upon which you base these key
claims.

I
dare to assume here that when you say "exist"
above, you do mean exist in Palestine. As opposed to, say for
example, in Switzerland where Herzl (1860-1904) first proposed his
plan. As you may recall, Herzl had argued, 40 some years before there
were even any signs of the Nazi menace or the Holocaust, in his
influential 1896 pamphlet Der Judenstaat or The
Jewish State
that: “Let the Sovereignty be granted us over a portion of
the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a
nation; the rest we shall manage for ourselves”, and
subsequently triumphantly declared in anticipation after the first
Zionist meeting: "In Basle I founded the Jewish state ...
Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it".
For if by "exist"
you indeed do mean “in Switzerland”, I have no need for
further clarification beyond you affirming that by "exist"
you mean moving Israel to Switzerland (or any place else other than
Palestine) post haste. You may now stop reading here if you wish
and just email me this affirmation. I will be delighted and thankful
as having received a satisfactory response to my inquiry.

I
also dare to assume that by “right
to exist” you imply that the
underlying reason for this right is because the Jews' mighty god has
given them an exclusive land grant in Palestine and it says so in
their holy books dating 3000 years. As opposed to, for example, the
underlying reason being fair and just compensation for almost 20
centuries of persecution that the bigoted Christian peoples have
mercilessly inflicted upon their brethren Jews, and for which, just
restitution from the Christian peoples own vast wealth, properties,
and lands must finally be made to the Jews in order to cleanse their
own primal sins of 20 centuries of bigoted anti-Semitism, and a
collective guilty conscience for the persistent Jewish problem in
their European Gentile midst.

For
if it is indeed the latter, then I further assume that as an honest
and erudite intellectual, you do uphold that such restitution cannot
be justifiably made by the gratuitous theft of another innocent
people's properties and lands in Palestine that the Christian peoples
happened to have militarily colonized through their bloody conquest
during the first world war in the early twentieth century, and which
they proceeded to gratuitously offer to the Jews under the notorious
BalfourDeclaration
in 1917 (22 years before the Nazi war machine went into action).
Subsequently, the Anglo-American imperial powers, with full
connivance of the burgeoning new Soviet
power, just handed the final usurpation of Palestine over to the Jews
to genocidally manage for themselves just as the Zionists had long
demanded, under the full protection of “an iron wall which
the native population cannot break through”*, in the guise
of protecting the Jews from another Christian fueled HolocaustTM**.

Footnotes
[*Vladimir Jabotinsky, The
Iron Wall, 1923, “This colonization can,
therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force
independent of the local population – an iron wall which the
native population cannot break through.” ] [**Tanya
Reinhart, Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948, opening
page: “Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic
cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a
process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable
to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers
and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in
1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up
believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be
forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the
faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the
danger of another holocaust.”
]

Surely,
you must have most eruditely studied, and also taught to your
students, this most treacherous piece of Machiavellian wordsmanship
of the Balfour Declaration written by the fiat of imperial power of a
waning empire, and how it came to be addressed to Lord Rothschild;
even asking the sensible questions most worthy of the Socratic
academic mind unbeholden to any master: who is the House of
Rothschild, how did it come to wield so much political influence over
a Christian empire embroiled in a world war in the early twentieth
century which had hitherto no love lost for the Jews, and what is
that impenetrable “iron wall” that continually protects
the Zionist resettlement of Palestine almost a hundred years later
just as was brazenly outlined by Vladimir Jabotinsky?

Most
assuredly, when you so openly confess: “Some
Arab-Americans blast me for naively accepting key claims of Zionism
when I argue for Israel's right to exist.”, you must
have been able to penetrate all of that dense fog of colonization and
injustice in order to come up with your clear argument.
Including, the fact that it was only the fiat of power that “legally”
architected that “right”, so to speak:

Caption
The Balfour Declaration: Dear Lord Rothschild, 'His Majesty's
Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavor
to facilitate the achievement of this object. it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,
or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country.' Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.

But
as one possessing a just and moral sense, I dare to presume, you
surely must recognize and feel outraged at the travesty of justice in
the Christian people's justice system, whereby in order to compensate
one peoples upon whom they have visited persecution for centuries,
they create the conditions for the systematic persecution of yet
another innocent peoples at the hands of their former victims. And if
you were observing from the planet Mars looking at this bizarre and
twisted sense of morality among the Christians on earth, you might
rightly conclude that these peoples must love the sight and smell of
blood as much as their illustrious predecessors in ancient Greece and
Rome, upon whose inheritance they base the claims of their Western
Civilization.

As
erudite historian(s) of the Middle East, you are no doubt already
intimately familiar with these transgressions of power-plays by the
hectoring hegemons in modern history. Therefore, if it is indeed the
compensation motive that motivates you instead of the good lord's
generous land grants to the Jews, then I would again have no further
need for additional clarification other than you unequivocally
affirming that by "right to exist"
you mean moving Israel to Rome, Berlin, Paris, or Michigan, or any
other lands owned by the Christians, in just compensation for their
horrendous crimes against their first victims (restitution to the
second victims will be taken up later). You may now stop reading
here if you wish and just email me this affirmation. I will be again
delighted and thankful as having received a satisfactory response to
my inquiry.

If
you have reached here, then I further dare to presume that when you
speak of “Israel's
right to exist”, it isn't
some abstract “right” that you refer to – for it
would be quite meaningless if it remained an abstract notion crafted
for argumentation purposes only, but that you mean by it the Jews
“immutable” claim to Eretz Yisrael as the Biblical
Promised Land. This of course includes all of present day Palestine,
but would also loosely extend from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers
in one dimension, from the Red Sea to the edge of the Persian Gulf in
the second dimension, all the sky and outer space above that region
in the third dimension, and for all eternal time in the fourth
dimension (I don't believe the Jews have claimed a fifth dimension –
but I could be misinformed).

That
you endorse the Zionist Jews abstract claims derived from theology,
over the real indigenously settled peoples' of the region physically
living there continuously for generations, perhaps since time
immemorial, and who still continue to live there to this day. That
you accord the Zionists, rights to a statehood on another's territory
in the International arena, and accord them special privileges over
and above the rights that are accorded to other states in the
International arena, to also perpetually expand, prosper, and
multiply as promised to them by their own respective Gods –
thus Stalinists may not take over beyond Russia, and Nazis may not
take over beyond Germany or it will lead to World Wars. But saintly
Jews, as God's Chosen and superior peoples, may “rightfully”
invade Palestine with extreme violence, be the only state on the
planet with increasingly “unsettled status of our borders”,
and eventually take over the entire Middle East as Eretz-Yisrael,
again with extreme violence and prejudice, against the 150 Million
indigenous populations.

That
such a “right
to exist” exercised over
Eretz Yisrael by the Zionist Jews, is their as much “immutable”
right to resettle the foreign land with their own imported brethren,
as the United States of America's was 300 hundred years ago, when
they resettled its vast foreign frontiers by exterminating millions
of its native inhabitants with similar extreme violence, perhaps as
many as 10 million, usurped the territories of the neighboring
Mexicans in cowardly wars, and proclaimed a glorious Republic from
Sea to shining Sea, endowing self-evident and inalienable God given
rights to the imported European settlers, who through their superior
work ethic and industriousness, eventually burst onto the world scene
as the beacon of Democracy for the rest of the “uncivilized”
World. So will Israel too become a beacon of Democracy in the
barbaric Middle East, presently occupied by a “people who do
not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to
different galaxy.”*

Footnote
[*Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10,
2001]

Certainly
if one accepts their first abstract claims of “right”
to create a real physical Jewish State in already inhabited Palestine
with the use of extreme force and terror over the indigenous peoples,
then one might as well accept all of their abstract claims for
“right”
to create Eretz-Yisrael as the
logical consequence of the first. And if this conundrum of logic puts
one at unease, then the only way out of it is to deny the first
claim.

A
tortuous first claim that started gaining momentum with Herzl
claiming in 1900s “We can be the vanguard of culture against
barbarianism”, leading to the creation of Israel within 50
years just as he'd foretold in 1896, the claim for Eretz-Yisrael may
be equally realized within another “five years, certainly in
fifty” with Israel's President claiming in 2001 that these
people “actually belong to different galaxy”, and
the President of the United States of America also proclaiming: “God
told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he
instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”, referring
to the biggest perpetuator of extreme deadly violence on the
Palestinian peoples, as a “man of peace”.

One
can already see the path to realization for Eretz-Yisrael, and the
role of the Zionists busy in hatching new deadly machinations for the
indigenous peoples of the Middle East region, not a whole lot
differently from their illustrious predecessors at the turn of the
previous century. While I do not wish to insult the mental acuity of
distinguished scholars by stating what is already out in the open and
available for all to observe, but just for the sake of completeness
of the thesis, after the commentary below, are just two examples of
brilliant amoral Zionist Jews bringing more bad name to all Jews, and
to the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments, making a mockery of
the Jews' own lofty religion before the world. In their murderous
fanaticism for Eretz-Yisrael, the Zionists lend further credence to
the historical stereotype of the Jew as “treacherous” and
“cowardly”, having “no moral compunctions”, a
perception that has already gained them much undeserved suffering as
a peoples. A monumental disreputation needing the monumental
sacrifices of conscionable Jews like the indomitable 22 year old
American Rachel
Corrie,
to even begin to reclaim self-assertions of “morality”
among the Jews.

Commentary:
The dire implications of this perception, at least in the “Muslim
mind”, cannot ever be sufficiently overestimated, nor can it
ever be convincingly argued to be wholly unjustified. As one may form
“impressions” from the uncourageous silence or “political
correctness” from among Muslim intellectuals today, that it's
okay to keep paddling the Muslims as they repeatedly ask “may I
please have some more sir”, where an outspoken courage may lead
to “war on terrorism” upon them by their own generals and
intelligence agencies running their nations as client-states. These
aren't the “Muslim minds” Jews need to worry about –
their elite souls have already been bought and paid for in the
Faustian bargains that they have made for uncourageous survival. The
Muslim peoples, directly bearing the brunt of the Zionists' largesse
of “shock and awe”, after 13 long years of stifling
economic sanctions that saw at least a million Iraqi Muslim children
and babies dead from malnutrition, preventable diseases for want of
basic medicines which could not be imported due to sanctions*, almost
as many dying as were killed in the holocaust, remember the acute
sympathy the Jewish US Secretary of State, Ambassador to the U.N.,
Madeleine
Albright**
could muster from the
depth of her soul:
“we think the price is worth it”. The
conscionable, and unapologetic historian William
Blum
called her “ethically
challenged***”
in a classic understatement to the sensibilities of Muslims bearing
the brunt of her barbarism. It is however quite necessary to
repeatedly
rehearse these facts****
because they seem to be all too easily forgotten in the general
American scholarship when it comes to describing innocent Muslim
blood spilled, from their own, and where these facts appear to be
rather disconnected from the Palestine-Israel discussions. But they
remain an essential daily reality in the hearts and lives of the
victims, where it is one incessant direct chain of machinations by
the Jews dreaming of Eretz-Yisrael, and their American protectors
dreaming of “Geostrategic Imperatives”.

“Although
Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us — a war for Israel
is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices —
Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war
with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups
who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out
how pro-Israeli organizations foresee Iraq not only as a new source
of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris River
to the parched Levant?” [*Mark Weber: Iraq:
A War For Israel?
; **Scoop Editors: Why
We Must GoTo War, Richard Perle Explains]

“Over
decades of political work, Wolfowitz and longtime buddies Donald
Rumsfeld and Cheney have mastered the art of packaging raw
geopolitical and corporate objectives into initiatives named
otherwise. Strategic oil fields have preoccupied them in and out of
office. It is almost a natural progression for the Bush/Cheney
administration to want someone this steeped in blood and oil in
charge of the World Bank. He was a weapon of mass deception for
corporate quests in Iraq. At the Bank, he can serve the same function
under the cloak of poverty alleviation. ... With Wolfowitz in charge,
the World Bank may be able to complete what the Iraq invasion started
two years ago: U.S. corporate control over the world’s
second-largest oil reserves.”

'In
Israel, The Jerusalem Post had selected Paul Wolfowitz as its Man of
the Year for 2002. The Post stated: "On September 15, 2001, at a
meeting in Camp David, Wolfowitz advised President George W. Bush to
skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got
his wish. In the process, Wolfowitz became the most influential US
deputy defense secretary ever - can you so much as name anyone else
who held the post?" The Post added: "The war in Iraq had
many authors: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, George Bush.
Wolfowitz may have been an early and vocal advocate, but he was
cheering from the second row. What's not in dispute is that Wolfowitz
is the principal author of the doctrine of preemption, which framed
the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin US
action against other rogue states.” ... "When President
Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons"
-- that's Wolfowitz talking. When the president calls for "a new
Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political
participation, economic openness and free trade" -- that's
Wolfowitz's talking, too. ... To our ears, the sudden stress on
Mideast democratization is "transformative," to use the
Pentagon jargon. Israel has long waited for an administration that
understands that the principal problem in the Middle East is not the
unsettled status of our borders. It is the unsettling nature of Arab
regimes -- and of the bellicosity, fanaticism, and resentments to
which they give rise. Israel has also long waited for an
administration that understands that the regimes that threaten Tel
Aviv also threaten New York.” '

Note
the claim “principal problem in the Middle East is not the
unsettled status of our borders”. Also note the
propagandistic association: “regimes that threaten Tel Aviv
also threaten New York.” and relate it to Robert Fisk's
observation above: “a war for Israel is not going to have
our boys lining up at the recruiting offices” - but it sure
will for an attack on New York. It isn't entirely meaningless to
inquire where the bluff for WMDs came from, or how the remarkable
defense failures of the world's most sophisticated and armed to the
teeth superpower transpired on the day of “new Pearl
Harbor”. What is however more instructive to ask is why?

The
obvious reasons of course are admitted to by Zbigniew Brzezinski and
Paul Wolfowitz themselves: for conveniently acquiring the “conditions
of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic
well-being”, as without it the “process of
transformation .. as an enduring military mission – worthy of
constant allocation of dollars and forces – .. will remain
stillborn”, whereas the “expanding perimeter
argues for new overseas bases and forward operating locations to
facilitate American political and military operations around the
world” in order to maintain “American Preeminence”
in the New American Century whose goals “must
be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant
position for at least a generation and preferably longer,..."
in order to maintain the “American peace” and “the
benevolent order it secures”. [complete quotes with
citations later on in the letter]

The
unobvious reasons of course, because of which so many Zionist Jews
just also happen to be Neocons in the service of the master du-jour,
predicate the destiny of the Iraqi people under the thumbscrews of
the Jews as but one of the phases of the Eretz-Yisrael project (while
simultaneously serving the master du-jour's colonial interests), and
it has many phases of realization. It's a long term project of
deception and mayhem, just as Herzl's was for Der Judenstaat,
instrumented through the Jewish Agency surreptitiously buying
Palestinian lands and prevailing upon the British in the aftermath of
World War I to make the Balfour Declaration, all as a phased and
gradual fifty year “legal tender” over Palestine. Erudite
scholars with short term memories aren't perhaps able to comprehend
disparate plots spanning such time scales, especially those living in
America – the land of Amnesia, until the plots are fait
accompli. After the fact, with 20-20 vision, everyone and their
brother becomes an expert historian and writes clever revelations in
history books on how it was done, as in “Righteous Victims”
by Israeli historian Benny Morris. One can clearly anticipate that in
another five to fifty years, or a hundred years, a new generation
will be reading similar histories about how the “war on
terrorism” was used to barbarically re-colonize the Middle East
for Eretz-Yisrael, just as they do today about how Palestine was
occupied in 1948, and how America was colonized in the 1700s.

Having
conclusively demonstrated above that “Israel's
right to exist” in Eretz-Yisrael
leads to even more bloody slaughter of indigenous peoples than it did
in Palestine, that isn't really the key issue. The fact that the
British colonialists initially granted the Zionists portions of
Palestine by partitioning what wasn't theirs to partition to start
with, is also only incidental at this stage in this inquiry. The
wannabe German colonialists may have done it too had they won World
War II to get rid of the Jews from among them in a more humane way
than to exterminate them, as the Jews most assuredly would have
argued. And the Americans are already doing it for them in the guise
of “war on terrorism” with its self-proclaimed Primacy
and Geostrategic Imperatives encompassing the entire planet. And
tomorrow another master may emerge and the Zionist Jews will attempt
to serve them just as well.

The
real key issue in this discourse at this stage of the inquiry is not
who enables the Zionist Jews to take over the implementation of
Eretz-Yisrael, as important as that is. But that, is there some
acceptable legitimacy to their abstract claims for Eretz-Yisrael,
which enables them to politically and physically realize an
implementation for it by cleverly and successfully using the masters
du-jour, over and above the rights and lives of the indigenous
peoples of the region. Discovering such claims to legitimacy, the
underlying values that might support them, and the role played by
scholars and intellectuals in Academia, whether inadvertently or
purposely, in giving further currency to these claims by affirming
“Israel's
right to exist”, is the
purpose of the rest of this letter.

Part-II:
Key value proposition

To
restate the issue in another more general way, is there any
legitimacy to an abstract “right
to exist” which leads to an
implementation of horrors, and has led to an implementation of
horrors in the past, indeed almost always when an indigenous peoples
have staged a self-defense? What can peaceful co-existence mean with
invading usurpers and alien occupiers, as a realization of “right
to exist”? Is that even the
correct way of framing the question – as such a framing already
concedes the rights of the indigenous natives in the International
order, and is thus squarely in the interests of the usurpers to
continue framing their occupation of another's land in that way, as a
means to eventually making peace after they have gobbled up as much
as they wanted? A peace among unequals? If the answer to these
questions is in empirical evidence around us today, as well as
visible through the long views of history, should one give legitimacy
to such an abstract “right”?
Or even frame such an abstract question? What is one, if one does
grant such arbitrary legitimacy? Alternately, is there even an
implementation of just and harmonious co-existence without a single
drop of blood deliberately being shed to affect such existence, even
possible in a situation when an alien people want to colonize
another's inhabited land? History, as well as Hollywood movies,
unequivocally vouch for the obvious answer to the latter, and
therefore it is only of theoretical interest and will not be
considered further. By carefully examining the particular, “Israel's
right to exist” question
and its ramifications, the more general case that is oft forgotten,
of the International principle of just and harmonious coexistence
will automatically become clear, and will also not be considered
further.

It
is however, instructive to re-rehearse the following overarching
principle of inter-human relations among equals: any right, whether
self-perceived, or inalienable, whether of an individual, or of a
people, is only a right to the degree that it is limited,
constrained, and bounded by encroachments upon others' rights. A
truism perhaps for fair minded human beings, perhaps even for
conducting a fair foreign policy among nations, and for defining an
international order for global peaceful coexistence, but often
deliberately misperceived or forgotten by hectoring hegemons in
search of empire, and their intellectual exponents who create “clash
of civilizations” and arbitrary constructs such as “right
to exist”, in search of pretexts for conquests.

Therefore,
I dare to presume that the preceding horror is everything you mean by
“Israel's
right to exist”, and you
give legitimacy to its reign of terror in implementing that
existence. As erudite and logical beings capable of analysis and
reflection, you instantly see the logical fallacy in condoning a
small crime, but not a slightly larger one. And as an imperative of
such logical thinking, even the greatest of crimes against humanity
recursively arrived at by the application of the above principle,
would be permitted, even including the holocaust. From the “primal
sin”* to genocide is indeed a very short step, as even the
worthy scholars of the Jews themselves will lamentably attest to the
“banality of evil”**. The only solution to this
problem for an honest and rational intellectual, worthy of being
called a scholar and the inheritor of the mantle of Plato, is not to
condone any crime, regardless of the pretexts and aspirations,
regardless of theology, and regardless of self-interests. If the
moral dilemma posed here causes you to rethink your support for
“Israel's right to exist”,
as you realize what it means in practice in the real world that
exists today in the Middle East, including of course in occupied
Palestine, teeming with a mass of real living human beings, with real
lives, real families with real children and real grandparents, real
histories, real values, real faiths, real hopes, real ambitions, and
real aspirations of their own as a people - physically living in
their own ancestral homes, and not viewed through the Zionist's prism
of an inferior goyim to be lorded over, then that's terrific
progress.

Thus
if you would like to restate your position on “Israel's
right to exist” as the most
vile blunder of twentieth century colonial politics since the
holocaust, and which needs to be immediately rectified by fighting
this murderous ideology of Zionism and its illegitimate offspring
with all the might of a genuine “war on terrorism”, just
as the fascists of the Third Reich who perpetuated the holocaust and
invaded others in search of Lebensraum, were fought by the entire
world, you may stop reading here if you wish, and just email me
your disavowment of your previous position on Israel, along with the
above affirmations. I will be incredibly delighted and thankful as
having received a response to my inquiry, most cogent, and most
worthy.

If
however you have (finally) reached here, then I would like to explain
what I seek in my inquiry when I request for your key "values"
upon which you (and other honest and erudite intellectuals sharing
this position with you) base your claims of "Israel's
right to exist" as a physical
country in Palestine with recognized (or even unrecognized) borders –
a Jews only apartheid state with overtly proclaimed and oft repeated
ambitions of extending the “unsettled status of our
borders”, by hook or by crook, to encompass Eretz Yisrael,
“From the Nile to the Euphrates”.

By
key "values" I mean something like:

I
value the sanctity of human life - hence I claim that war, murder,
atrocities, genocide, whether by a person with a single gun, or by
the State using a squadron of F16s, is wrong; where the former is
the key value, upon which the latter key claim is based.

Or
even something like:

I
value the principles of Democracy, and as Americans, we value it to
even such a high degree of commitment, that we do not even refrain
from bombing it onto the other non-democratic nations of the Middle
East; therefore, I claim that “the
existence of a Jewish State”
is inconsistent with my values of Democracy as an American, as it
precludes
all the democratic*
ideals for
its other indigenous non-Jewish populations*.
Unless of course the Jews manage to kill or “transfer”
all the natives who are non-Jewish over time as we did the native
American Indians, and this question is posed to me after the Jewish
State is a hundred percent fait accompli. Until such time, while
even a single Palestinian is still alive and not safely ensconced on
a “reservation” where giving him Democratic rights would
mean as much as it means for the native American Indian to possess
them today after their systematic elimination from their own lands,
I must vehemently oppose the concept of a Jewish State in Palestine.
I further claim that we, as Americans, must also rain Democracy onto
Israel as we have done to other Muslim nations in this war on
terrorism. I claim freedom must also be on the march for the
Palestinians who are now slaving under the oppressive yoke of the
Jews as second class citizens in the apartheid state of Israel.

And
finally, as another even more illustrative example of key value-claim
pair, consider:

I
hate intellectual hypocrites, therefore I value and employ the
Biblical Golden rule "Do unto others as you have others do
unto you" to reach moral clarity on all obfuscating and
emotionally charged issues, even when the result may not favor my
own predilections. Hence I claim that Zionists are a curse on
humanity, for if everyone invoked their personal god's land grants
in this way, and acquired the power to execute on their god's
munificence, then based on my value of the Golden rule, humanity
would cease to exist.

Note
that if one only championed the claims as stated above, and did not
truthfully and forthrightly specify the key values that they based
such claims upon, then one would forever be arguing on red herrings
and gratuitous charges of anti-Semitism – for the points of
arguments often aren't claims, but their underlying key values! Not
realizing this (unwittingly) and not articulating this (deliberately)
as the presupposed “value” upon which the claim is
actually constructed, leads to meaningless expenditure of perfectly
good energy in almost every case of human discourse. It is the basis
of vile deception in discussions and negotiations; of waging wars by
way of deception; of using sophistry by snake-oil salesman disguised
as scholars; and the craftsmanship of the 'ubermensch', the
superman, already beyond good and evil, and merely selling “noble
lies” to the simpleton public mind uninitiated in the vagaries
of Nietzschean morality --- henceforth, all unmasked. Therefore,
without articulation of key values, claims cannot, and ought not, be
entertained in honest scholarship!

Consider
an alternate key value proposition that is truthfully articulated:
"might is right". If one held this amoral value of emperors
and kings, and truthfully let it be known that such is their value,
then one could rightfully and unhypocritically hold the inverse of
the claim in the above example: Zionism is the Jewish god's gift to
his superior and chosen people, and the rest of mankind is created to
serve them as faithful goyims whenever the Zionist god is in
ascendance.

This
claim then would justifiably switch to the native American Indians
claims to their own bountiful land grants from the sea to the shining
sea, and the subsequent legitimate scalping of you* and your kin if
their god ever rose in ascendance, leaving you* no legitimate rights
of your own to complain since you also subscribed to the same
imperial key value proposition of "might is right".

Footnote
[*you here refers to Americans living on the American continent –
the land usurped from the native American Indians at the point of the
gattling-gun, small-pox laden bacteriological warfare, and other
craftsmanship of the ubermensch mind]

Commentary
on the above value-claim pair: While
the latter scenario some may argue is highly improbable, albeit
certainly illustrative of the hypothetical concern for those who
espouse this chauvinist value, a similar situation in the Middle East
is not all that impossible, nor so hypothetical. The Semitic God can
be quite fickle as the Jews abundantly already know through their
3000 year history, and as have the Muslims also already learned in
their meritorious rise and precipitous decline from where the only
place for them to go now after having hit rock bottom, is up. Whereas
for the Jews, the moment they are deprived of their prime benefactor
- America - where are they? 50 or 100 or 200 years are but a twinkle
in civilizational lifetimes. Israel, entirely surrounded by enemies
so artfully inculcated and systematically sustained (as some might
cynically observe of Christian Zionism and America's signed blank
check to Israel), the only means of self-defense the Israelis
possess, is their Armageddon seeking “Samson option”
bluff. A bluff to which it may be argued, the Muslim mind is not
entirely impervious to call on. It would only speed up the arrival of
their "shaheed" soul in Heaven as the epitome of jihad
against an infernal foe, while simultaneously getting rid of the
menace of Zionism and the Jews exploitation of the goyim from amongst
mankind for all times. One may not so easily dismiss this scenario as
one might for the native American Indians. It is so incredible to
observe that people who live in glass houses still insist on throwing
stones at their neighbors, despite centuries of having been taught
lessons after lessons about where a hatred of them can lead to.
Hitherto, the Jews have had the best periods of their existence since
the arrival of Islam only among the Muslims*
– an incontrovertible and unarguable fact of history**.
Everywhere else among the Christian lands, they remained oppressed –
culminating in the unspeakable Holocaust also at their own hands.
What role did Muslims have to play in perpetuating this unthinkable
crime against humanity? Even today, as a Muslim, I am horrified just
thinking about it, cringe when I see any photographs, and seek mercy
from Heaven, as does every Muslim, and that horrification only
becomes tempered by the realization for all 1.5 Billion of us: 'what
type of people are these who turn around and do a similar unspeakable
thing to another innocent peoples – us', as the Christians goad
them on in redemption of their own guilt? The primal cause for their
oppression of the Jews may be traced to the founding of Christianity
itself, wherein the Christians have long accused their fellow
brethren of “killing the Christ”, and the Jews have
accused their Christian brothers of “heresy”. Among the
Jews and the Muslims, there is much in common in religious
parameters, from the very conception of God (at least as Maimonidesdefined
it, in the English version), to the mundane needs of the stomach. One
would hardly be remiss in cynically observing: is this the Jews'
grateful payback to the Muslims for centuries of harmonious living
among them? The initiation of the founding of Israel as a physical
state in Palestine upon the blood of the Muslims, has (forever)
poisoned that amity between the two brothers – the inheritors
of the same Grand Patriarch, Prophet Abraham (after whose name even
my dear late father is named, as are countless generations of
Muslims, and Jews, albeit with slightly different spellings). Either
the people in the “Judeo-Christian” Western civilization
today who support Zionism understand this history too well, and
actually have it in for the Jews in the long term as the ultimate
expression of their anti-Semitism by turning brother against
brother***, or they support Zionism thoughtlessly, never having
analyzed the underlying key value propositions, and being gullibly
sold on the Zionists' god's land grants to: a people without land,
on a land without people.

Footnotes
[*King Abdullah: As
the Arabs see the Jews,
1947] [***Noam Chomsky: Arab
countries' attitudes towards Jews, Israel]
[**Albeit some do argue with their selective sacred memories and keen
penmanship as in Joan Peters': From
Time Immemorial,
by cleverly omitting to mention the Golden Period of the Jews
(Maimonides);
or that at Khayber, the Prophet of Islam administered to the Jews a
retributive punishment of the Jews' own choosing, from the Jews' own
religious books, for the war crime of treacherously breaking their
peace treaty with him while the Muslims in their fledgling new state
in Medina were being attacked by the Meccans. The unfortunate
stereotype of the “treacherous Jews” in Muslim rhetoric,
albeit reinforced today by the Zionists' behavior in Palestine, when
traced back in time, primarily comes to rest on this one significant
episode in Islamic history. Apart from that, the Jews played an
indispensable and amicable role in Muslim societies from North Africa
to Iran, often in the roles of institutional elite comprising
physicians, scholars, advisors, traders, etc. Only the European
Jewry, living under the thumb of intolerant Christianity for
centuries, remains confused and ignorant about it. And from among the
latter, arise modern
institutional scholars
who today write “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy
Terror” etc., with little or no personal experience of any of
their own Jewish ancestors, of having lived among the Muslims in the
European Dark and Middle Ages - when intolerant Christianity was
eating their lunch in Europe (it would be interesting for the astute
academic to observe that the name
Bernard
Lewis,
author of the preceding self-serving and offensively titled book, and
lauded as “a leading Western scholar of Islam” by
his protégé Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of
Civilizations”, shows up as a signatory to the 1998
open letter to President Bill Clinton
by the Committee
for Peace and Security,
similar to the letter by Project
New American Century
both advocating
the invasion
of Iraq on
the same fiction
“to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against
the U.S.” ). The Muslims remained dominant, unchallenged,
and unsurpassed in all spheres of culture and scholarship for about
700 years – from their meritorious rise in 700 C.E to approx.
1400 C.E, when the revival started in the European West as they freed
themselves from the stifling yoke of Medieval Christianity. From 1400
C.E. to approx. 1600 C.E. the Muslims still remained a tour de force
coasting on their previous successes, but with no new remarkable
successes, and the West had started becoming dominant through their
Renaissance. From 1600 C.E. onwards, the Muslims started their
journey towards intellectual stagnation, even as they remained a
major political empire with flourishing trade and commerce for
another three hundred years after that. The Muslims were easily
supplanted by the rapid developments in the West through the
industrialization and rapid acceleration in science and technology in
those last three centuries, courtesy of the complete decadence and
domineering imperial constitution of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The
Ottomans, until the start of World War I, ran the affairs of much of
the Middle East, including Palestine, and after their defeat in the
war, they were entirely dismantled as the long cherished goal of the
British and French colonialists. Their former territories, i.e. the
Muslim Lands of the Middle East, continuously inhabited by Muslim for
Millennia, were arbitrarily partitioned into the present countries
and borders at the Treaty
of Versailles
(Treaty
of Sevres)
among the French and British victors of that first World War - a war
in which the rapidly declining but equally ferocious Turkish Ottomans
were foolish enough to have been on the side of the vanquished. This
arbitrary partitioning of the Middle East and of the Muslim Arab
Peoples in 1920, and prevented from being reunited even as the
European Christian barbarians perpetuating the two World Wars amongst
themselves that together saw at least 50 million people dead, unite
today, is the most egregious fact of client-state post-colonialism
today as vouched by Winston Churchill himself. To add insult to
injury, the creation of Israel in the heart of the Middle East as the
dumping ground for Europe's own unwanted “trash” and
making it the burden of the Muslims to bear, is the epitome of
colonial injustice in modern times. One may not forget these recorded
facts of not too distant a history as one proceeds to analyze the
causes of resentment among the conscionable self-respecting and
dignified Muslims against Western imperialism still operational under
the guise of client-states and corporate globalization. The throwing
of the “tea” overboard may not be too long in coming, and
should hardly come as a surprise to a nation itself founded on doing
the exact same thing – if the peoples were properly and
truthfully informed that is, by the erudite scholars in the academe
as the primary imperative of their lofty profession. Their
conscionable peoples may even join the aggrieved in their fight for
independence as opposed to joining in the imperialist's “war of
terrorism” against them. The fortunes of the ordinary Jewish
peoples in the Muslim lands overall, through this rise and fall,
remained no more outstanding, and no more worse, than for the
ordinary Muslim peoples themselves, for even while Muslim
civilizations politically, intellectually, and culturally saw many
vicissitudes, many internal schisms with Muslims oppressing Muslims
(Salaha-din Ayubi – known to the West as Saladin, was for
instance, far kinder to the Jews when he re-conquered Jerusalem than
he was to his fellow Shia Muslims), the social interaction between
Muslims, Christians, and Jews remained amicable – sometimes
stressed during times of war, as with the fanatic Christian
Crusaders, much relaxed during the times of peace; any difference
between a Middle Eastern Jew, Middle Eastern Christian, and Middle
Eastern Muslim, remained only in the mind of the European beholder
who had never experienced such a social intercourse in their own
societies and could not comprehend that it could even exist. Arabs,
and Muslims in general (only about 10% of World Muslim population
is Arab and lives in the Middle East), have no understanding of
this European word “anti-Semitism”,because most
Arabs are Semites, and the Prophet of Islam is Semite. In fact,
the Arabs today are far more Semite than the Jews themselves –
the latter's blood having been mixed with the Gentiles in the
Diaspora over Millennia. Furthermore, Muslims have nothing against
the Religion of the Jews either, indeed Prophet Moses, and Prophet
Jesus as well, are considered among the 5 Great Prophets (Ulul-Azam)
in Islam, and are explicitly mentioned in the Quran as such. Muslims
revere the Prophets of the Old Testament, as Messengers of the same
one God. So whence “anti-Semitism”? It is the Western
scholar who unfairly transfers his prejudices onto the Muslims. Even
their citations for the books they have consulted to write their
modern histories in many cases are the prejudicial writings and
prejudicial translations from Arabic made by the eighteenth and
nineteenth century Orientalists. These were the institutional
scholars for the Crown who poorly understood Islam and the Muslims,
and belonged to a culture that remained fearful of the powerful and
decadent Ottoman Empire that they were continually trying to subvert
in favor of their own British and European colonialism, with a 'la
mission civilisatrice' mindset. (It's funny that even the US
Government used to pay them token “Jizyaa” – a
small tribute in lieu of peace with the powerful and fearsome Ottoman
Empire – a fact little known or advertised today in the
writings of Western scholars of Islam). The modern Western scholars
using these prejudicial writings as their primary textual sources of
knowledge about historical Islam and history of the Muslims, then
regurgitate the same bias that existed in the colonial days against
Islam. One can examine the citations and see for one's self what is
the earliest original Arabic source that a Western scholar has
actually used in his modern works – most will still be based on
nineteenth century translations of a very few classic works in
Arabic. And it need not be stated to the Western scholar who has
pioneered the modern art of studying histories from many diverse
original sources, that within the Muslim histories themselves, there
are as many court histories, and court scholars, as there are today
in enlightened America, and the Muslims still do not have the
equivalent of “A Peoples History of the United States” by
Howard Zinn. A Western scholar hasn't a clue what the lives of the
ordinary Jews were like among the Muslim, unless he takes a modern
sampling by living among the ordinary Muslims even today in the
Middle East – where despite all that has happened in Palestine,
the social intercourse betrays a revulsion by the remaining Jews
(those that weren't expelled in retribution for the founding of
Israel in Palestine and Israel's
provocative bombings, that some might convincingly argue,
were purposely instrumented for this purpose knowing fully well that
it would lead to Jews being expelled in retaliation, and thus finding
a new home in the new Jewish State – the only way to populate
it), for what their Zionist brethren have done in their name to the
Muslims. And if one needs further proof, just check the composition
of the Jewish population of Israel – of the approx. 4 million
Jews as of 2000 (racially stratified into at least three tiered
pyramid structure with Ashkenazi, the white European Jews on top,
followed by the Mizrachi or Sephardic Jews of Arab origin, followed
by the black Ethiopian Jews; the indigenous Palestinians who are
Israeli citizens in terms of rights always follow last), which is
about 10% of the supposed 40 Million world wide Jewish population (it
is often hard to count the Jews in Diaspora because they are so well
intermingled into the host cultures), less than 1-2% are Orthodox
Jews. These are the “holy” ones that are normally shown
on American television praying at the Wailing Wall as if they
comprise the entire Israeli population. A significant majority of
Jews in Israel, are secular transplants from Europe (and America),
starting in 1900s, when the surreptitious land acquisitions by the
Jewish Agency started an influx of European Jews into Palestine. Few
Jews from the entire Arab lands actually moved into Israel, except
those who might have been expelled in (anticipated) retribution, as
perhaps the Sephardic. Even today, Israel
imports peoples from Africa to India to South America
(these might constitute still another tier in Israel's stratified
racist society, as converted Jews) by converting them to Judaism as
the lost tribes of Israel, for few Jews from Diaspora actually
want to live in Israel. Why else do the majority still live outside
Israel? And why else does Israel want to import the lower
echelons from among them even if it has to convert them first in
order to better the Jewish demographics? It is the fanatic Western
Zionist Jew who has made Israel their life's mission, not the Jew
without the Zionist prefix (self-evident but needs stating). Having
covered 1400 years of history above with a broad brush into a
nutshell, it is interesting to observe, as illustrated by the
value-claim model, that arguments on history can become a never
ending and tiresome 'my version of history is more veracious than
yours', even as each side claims “facts” and not opinions
that back up their version. Thus I will quickly concede on
this yet another red herring by saying that the views expressed here
are consistent at least with how the 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world
today view their long association with their cousin-brethren, the
Jews. And that is a reality that the Westerns Zionist Jews must
reckon with as they brutally usurp Palestine at the point of their
American sugar daddy supplied guns, finances, and political will. The
fact of this reality alone decides what will come next for all the
Jews – and for the Muslims as well for that matter, and that
point is the key value proposition of this commentary, not any
exclusivity to “objective” claims upon facts of history.
It may be argued that conversely, the Muslim mind must also accept
the reality of what the Western Zionist Jew perceives as his
“legitimate” Biblical claims to the Holy Land. The
response to this argument however should be rather obvious from the
bandit's example. Claims of this nature, argued over the barrel of a
gun while standing in a pool of the untermensch's blood, has
only one temporary victor – the one holding the gun ]

As
is apparent in the above examples and explanations, once the key
value proposition becomes truthfully known, and the implication of
its logical application to its natural conclusion becomes apparent
through a little bit of rational thinking, one can quickly see the
debate among an intelligent people correctly shifting to the
underlying value propositions from the emotionally charged and
obfuscating combat on claims.

It
becomes far more productive to debate whether it is right or wrong,
beneficial or harmful, to hold the value "might is right",
rather than to debate the claims whose god gave whom what land rights
when. For the latter claim is only assertable in the present tense by
the value of holding a gun over another's head, as is perhaps even
obvious in any ordinary armed robbery on the streets of New York –
at that moment, it is rather moot discussing whether the robber is
entitled to the wallet of the innocent unarmed victim or not as he
simply just snatches it at the barrel of his terrifying weapon
exclaiming “it's
all mine”*.
Which is why in every criminal court today in a functioning civilized
society, claiming entitlement to commit robbery would be considered
ludicrous, and be irrelevant and inadmissible on any pretext, as the
underlying key value of 'robbery is a crime' has been found
desirable for the conduct of civilized society, away from the days of
the Wild West where the one fastest on the draw could do as he
pleased, until shot dead by another even faster and more ruthless.

In
the same vein, an intelligent people would clearly know that history
has shown that no one's god has been able to maintain their
monopolistic grip on power for very long, and that such a law of the
jungle can turn the tables even on a strong lion as it approaches its
end of life. These farsighted and astute peoples, seeking the wisdom
of self-interest gleaned from long views of history, would wisely
consider highway robbery as much a crime when committed by arbitrary
and artificial constructs like nations* and the World
Bank**,
as they have made it a crime when committed by individuals, in order
that they may sustain a civilized and amicable existence in a global
society, with all holding the key value proposition: 'no
one may take undue and unfair advantage of another',
sacred and inviolable.

But
of course, some other intelligent people will ignore this lesson of
history, and continue to hold their value of "might is right"
with impunity* because they might feel they can never lose with their
nuclear weapons arsenal giving them a “Samson option”; or
even that: “who cares about history, we will all be dead”,
as George W. Bush quipped with brazen chutzpah to a question from his
biographer on how history would view his 2003 invasion of Iraq in
search of the non-existent WMDs which were never found.

In
either case, if they, along with their intellectual exponents openly
proclaim their value of "might is right" as the lion does
in the jungle where he reigns supreme for a time, then their
behaviors and conquests are self-consistent with their truthful
declaration of their key value proposition, and they would not be
intellectual hypocrites. Indeed they would also be protected from
burning in the lowest recesses of Hell (in case not all of them are
amoral atheists and some happen to subscribe to any of the world's
major religions that prescribes the severest punishment for the
hypocrites).

Of
course, other more precise descriptions that possibly come to the
minds of those on the receiving end of the mighty's rights of
hectoring hegemony could be "monumental war criminals", and
perhaps even "mass murderers", or even “genocide
specialists” responsible for "all the evil that
follows" their initiation of barbarism*.
As supreme a war crime as this is according to the Geneva
Conventions, for it seeds all the successive cycle of atrocities and
terror for which the initiator of aggression is entirely deemed
responsible, and for which fact the Nazi leadership was convicted and
hanged by the Nuremberg tribunal, it is still less of a crime than
hypocrisy. For in the absence of hypocrisy and obfuscation, everyone,
all and sundry among the public and the leaderships, unambiguously
come to know where the battle front lies, and the weak prepare to
become strong and fight-back instead of wasting their time on
meaningless pursuits and argumentation, that while emotionally
charged, turn out to be nothing more than red herrings. The public
knowing and recognizing the aggressor early on, knowing their intent
even before the fact, is crucial in stopping and ending the
aggressor's reign of terror, and thus reducing the misery of the
peoples and saving them from fate horrendous, before they meet that
fate. Whereas punishing the supreme criminals after the fact does
little for the innocent men, women, and children who lost their
tabula rasa while the people of the world argued and remained in
obfuscation. Thus it may be convincingly argued that intellectual
hypocrites are the greater criminals for in their hands lie the key
to the survival of the aggrieved. Followed of course by the hectoring
hegemons in the hierarchy of the guilty who openly proclaim their
intent to commit the supreme crime of initiating aggression for
conquest, as openly as Hitler did in his Mien Kampf. And certainly
when the intellectuals will proclaim they did not know about these
aggression plans, they might be equally informed by the Judge who
will preside over their trial**: 'The plans of the aggressor for
aggression were just as secret as Der
Judenstaat and PNAC on the Grand Chessboard.'

Footnotes
[*Noam Chomsky: Civilization
Versus Barbarism?
– interview with Alam] [**Judge Robert Jackson's actual words
at Nuremberg were: “The plans of Adolf Hitler for
aggression were just as secret as Mein Kampf, of which over six
million copies were published in Germany.”Closing
speech at Nuremberg]

Indeed
the comments of Justice Robert H. Jackson at the closing speech at
Nuremberg in 1946, as the presiding chief counsul for the United
States of America, the country that was the chief prosecutor for war
crimes at Nuremberg, are rather telling of how aggression is viewed
when committed by others:

“We
charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes,
or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive
war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not
concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the
merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the
status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not
advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and
cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national
ambitions created in the 1930's, as they will continue to create,
grave problems for Germany as well as for the other peoples of
Europe. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide
political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable
alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the
wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these
problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior
to 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to
redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war.”
[Judge Robert Jackson's Closing
speech at Nuremberg]

But
certainly there are no tribunals for the undefeated mighty whose
value proposition is “might is right”. They openly
proclaim: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting
the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not
be asked later on whether he told the truth or not”. Or
equally unabashedly announce to the public on prime-time television,
their imperial proposal for preemptive self-defense against
fictitious WMDs with a “shock and awe” campaign
over a civilian population killing a 100,000 people with
self-righteous indifference: “we don't keep track of Iraqi
dead”. So long as "might" continues to win,
"might" also continues to define "right", as well
as what is "crime" and who is a "criminal".

This
is rather insightfully illustrated by St. Augustine when describing
the interlocution of a pirate by Alexander:

“when
the king asked him what he meant by investing the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ”
[St. Augustine of Hippo: “City of God Against the Pagans”]

That
such a prerogative of the powerful isn't just at the time of overt
military warfare and driven from the purported exigencies of
perceived
self-defense*,
witness the following amazing confession by the strategic policy
planner in the U.S. State Department, George Kennan, who in the
once-classified Policy Planning Study 23 from 1948 candidly wrote:

“We
have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population
.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern
of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do
so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and
day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated
everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and
world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and - for
the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of
living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we
are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are
then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” [Noam
Chomsky: “Turning the Tide”, quoted by Mark Chmiel in
“Moral Leadership”; Wikipedia entry for George Kennan,
PPS 23, has the complete text of this seminal memo which became the
cornerstone of the so called “Truman Doctrine” that
seeded the Cold War]

Footnotes
[*Noam Chomsky: “The U.S. Is a Leading Terrorist State” -
an Interview with David Barsamian in Monthly
Review 2001]

That
such a prerogative also isn't just a thing of the past, or some
exigent imperative during the Cold War, witness the following
remarkable, albeit frightening candor in the 1996 book: The Grand
Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the chief architects of
the demise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War:

“It
is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be
autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially
its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist
democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power
is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of
a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic
well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and
the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers)
required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts.
Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”
[The
Grand Chessboard, pgs.35,36]

“...
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,
it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign
policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and
widely perceived direct external threat. .... More generally,
cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained
exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a
high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and
patriotic gratification. ... Mass communications have been playing a
particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong
revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low
levels of casualties .... In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be
un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant
position for at least a generation and preferably longer,..."
[Ibid. pgs. 211-215]

That
such an imperial prerogative is not some antiquated remnant of the
previous century of crusty old men having nothing better to do than
to make grandiose plans, but very much the guiding principle behind
“Full Spectrum Dominance” in the twenty-first
century, witness these prophetic statements from the chapter
“Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force” in the report
“Rebuilding
America's Defenses”
of Project
New American Century
published in September 2000, with Paul Wolfowitz listed as a
contributor.

Note
some key phrases that realize Brzezinski's “imperial
mobilization”: “new Pearl Harbor”, “enduring
military mission worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces
”, “expanding perimeter” ,” American
political and military operations around the world”, “American
peace”, “benevolent order it secures”.

“As
long as wars and other military operations derive their logic from
political purposes, land power will remain the truly decisive form of
military power. ... In sum the ability to preserve American military
preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the
ability to operate in space militarily. ... But over the long term,
maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application
of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to
antimissile defenses ... Cyberspace, or 'Net-War' If outerspace
represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace”,
and in particular the internet hold similar promise and threat. And
as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the internet are
emerging elements of global commerce, politics and powerplay. Any
nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this
other new “global commons”. ... there nonetheless will
remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies'
enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or
the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive
capability could offer America's military and political leaders an
invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken
together, the prospects for space and “cyberspace war”
represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of
military transformation. These future forms of warfare are
technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for
the U.S. Armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel
in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential
future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and
sea warfare reflect United States military dominance. Until the
process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission
– worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces –
it will remain stillborn. ... Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new
Pearl Harbor” [Rebuilding
America's Defenses,
pgs. 51-61]

“The
Price of American Preeminence: The program we advocate – one
that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands
of the world's sole superpower – requires budget levels to be
increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP... We believe it is
necessary to increase slightly the personnel strength of U.S. Forces
– many of the missions associated with patrolling the expanding
American security perimeter are manpower-intensive, and planning for
major theater wars must include for politically decisive campaigns
... Also this expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and
forward operating locations to facilitate American political and
military operations around the world. ... Keeping the American peace
requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of missions
today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can
be no retreat from these missions without compromising American
leadership and the benevolent order it secures.”
[Ibid. pgs. 74-76]

And
to drive the final nail in the coffin of disinformation created for
the public because “We need not deceive ourselves that we
can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We
should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal
objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts”;
power concepts that have been in regular play ever since
the end of World War II, and so passionately argued by George Kennan
at about the same time as the founding of Der Judenstaat, but
craftily needing to be fictionalized by both the master and its
protégé, as American “Democracy
is inimical to imperial mobilization”.
William Blum summed the reality of deception employed for
Brzezinski's “imperial mobilization” most
straightforwardly:

'
Intelligence failure or imperial ambitions?

On
March 31 the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivered its
report to the president. The Commission concluded that "the
Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war
judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major
intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the Intelligence
Community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD
programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could
gather, and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was
based on assumptions, rather than good evidence."{2} Many
people, including members of the Commission, likely take the above to
mean that if "the intelligence community" [sounds like a
small town in New England] had only done its job better it would have
learned that Iraq didn't have an arsenal of WMD sufficient to pose
any kind of serious threat to the United States and a lot of bloody
horror could have been avoided. That, however, is a highly
questionable assumption. It presumes that the Bush administration
actually went to war because it genuinely believed that Iraq was both
dangerously armed and an "imminent" threat to use those
arms against the United States. But the Bush administration knew
perfectly well that Iraq's military capability was nothing to be
particularly concerned about. Here's Colin Powell, speaking in
February 2001 of US sanctions on Iraq: "And frankly they have
worked. He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable
to project conventional power against his neighbors."{3} And
here is Condoleezza Rice, in July of that year, speaking of Saddam
Hussein: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces
have not been rebuilt."{4} ' [William Blum: “The
Anti-Empire Report, No. 20”]

Based
on the preceding evidence in the words of the mighty themselves, it
must be fair to state that almost axiomatically, proper and honest
delineation of issues with explicit and truthful declaration of the
underlying key value propositions, always empowers the weak –
it removes obfuscation and enables focussing debate onto the central
core issues.

And
it arguably also always disfavors the mighty as a corollary, who
would prefer to keep the democratic instincts of their people
embroiled among the herrings that they so generously sprinkle in
their midst in order to continue with their conquests – as
genuine “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”
For as Goethe aptly put it:

“None
are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are
free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by
masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till
wrong looks like right in their eyes.”

It
is no secret that once the layers of deliberate obfuscation are
peeled away, there becomes apparent, the many complex and overlapping
confluence of mutual, and sometimes competing interests that make up
support for “Israel's right to
exist”. At the risk of stating the
obvious to the scholarly, please allow me to summarize them as
spanning the gamut: from the hectoring
foreign policy interests
of the dominant Alpha-male chauvinist superpower in the self-serving,
self-appointed role of the super-cop, pursuing the largest and most
powerful global empire in the history of empires; to the fanatical
and easily manipulatable Christian Zionist fundamentalists who
genuinely seek to usher in their peaceful Messiah at the expense of
willfully shedding other people's blood; to the genuine aspirations
of the ordinary Jewish peoples throughout their two millennia
Diaspora to someday be returned to their Promised Land; to the
doctrinal scholars and leaders of the Jews genuinely trying to
protect their flock from European anti-Semitism, and often harvesting
it in complex and morally reprehensible, and ultimately monumentally
criminal ways towards the fulfillment of their dreams. There are
mainly two key aspects worth noting here in this disentangled space,
that even though perhaps obvious to many, bears explicit observation.

First
is that dreams, hopes, and aspirations do not by themselves
constitute “rights”, in either any legal sense, or in any
moral sense, regardless of how profoundly or religiously held, or who
holds them. To have self-perceived rights of course is only
meaningful in the context of others also having them, and the
potential for conflict existing – which is why “rights”
are needed. Unless of course the key value held is “might is
right” and other's don't matter. Hitler too held very profound
hopes and aspirations for Lebensraum, and claimed all of
Europe as God's gift to the superior Germanic people, one ought not
to forget. Whereas self-defence, regardless of any key value
proposition, is an inalienable and immutable action, needing no laws
to enact, nor possible to retract through their enaction – for
it is encoded in our very DNA. As an invariant of all living species,
even a feline will scratch back in self-defence, Palestinians after
all, are a courageous human beings, as are the rest of the
defenseless peoples of the world who do not much care for the
gratuitous democracy rained upon them even for the “benevolent
order it secures” in the interest of keeping an “American
peace”. For the lack of a more descriptive word, “rights”
to self-defense is often used to express this action against an
aggressor, but it must be understood that it is fundamentally
different in nature, than for instance, the American Bill of Rights
which are really a human convention for a fair and harmonious
co-existence with each other, pompous proclamations of self-evident
and inalienable endowment of God notwithstanding. A cat's involuntary
act of scratching the pugnacious bulldog's eyes out trumps all such
human conventions of self-evident and inalienable rights, as the
primitive first order fight or flight response of our very genetic
makeup can no more be regulated, than the oppressed can be denied
their acts in self-defense by calling their last desperate acts of
fighting for survival, “terrorism”. The cat must also be
a terrorist from the dog's point of view – he'd rather she just
lie down and become a nice juicy chewing bone in the interest of
keeping “dog” peace. The rabid dog too will do what's in
its nature, and like all vicious dogs that pose a threat to other
creatures, the solution to rid the world of its vicious menace is not
exactly unobvious.

Second
is that the examples of other nation states founded on extreme
violence in the past, like the European settlers escaping from their
own persecutions systematically exterminating millions of
indigenous American peoples to found the United States of America, do
not set a precedent to similarly found new nations and new Lebensraum
on other indigenously populated lands in modern “civilized”
times. And at the risk of appearing pedantic in stating the obvious,
past atrocities and genocide in the service of colonization and
conquest, do not set a precedent to initiate new despotism, new
systematic oppression and subjugation, and new inhuman cruelties
lasting generations, against new innocent peoples. Indeed, in modern
civilization, such barbarism and inhumanity is held to be so morally
repugnant, that such an initiation of aggression and barbarism is
declared to be the “supreme” war crime responsible
for “all the evil that follows”.

If
an unfortunate peoples are still visited upon by such misfortunes
despite such lofty deterrence laws on the books of nations who are
signatories to the Geneva Conventions; and if despite the experience
of the Nuremberg Trials and World War II in the not too distant
memory resoundingly pledging “never again” once
again silently or indifferently spectating the calamity befalling the
'untermenschen' and participating in bringing it about through
uncourageous acts of commission or omission'; it only incurs the
passionate and eloquent wrath of the erudite holocaust survivor,
Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, yet again:

“And
I bear within me a nameless grief and disillusionment, a bottomless
despair, it is because that night I saw good and thoughtful Jewish
children, bearers of mute words and dreams, walking into darkness
before being consumed by the flames. I see them now, and I still
curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who
knew and kept silent, and Creation itself, Creation and those who
perverted and distorted it. I feel like screaming, howling like a
madman so that that world, the world of murderers, might know it will
never be forgiven.” [Elie Wiesel: “Memoirs - All
Rivers Run to the Sea”]

To
the eternal misfortune and lament of the poor Palestinians, the
twentieth century Zionist leaders, at the barrel of their genocidal
guns, and in the diabolical pursuit of their aspirations with various
conniving shenanigans, pursuing the blessings of the old colonialists
as serving their colonial, and post-colonial interests, as in: “We
can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism” that
Herzl pitched to the different masters controlling the region,
depicting the indigenous Arabs as barbaric needing a 'la mission
civilisatrice', and culminating in a reign of terror upon them,
brought to fruition, Der Judenstaat.

It
was an unremarkable implementation of the cherished dreams and hopes
of millions upon millions of Jews throughout their long arduous
history, a dream that was religiously passed on from generations to
generations and composed the ethos of their existence in Diaspora,
which in 1948, inarguably looked like the genocidal colonization of
the Americas, and which today, inarguably looks like the Nazis'
genocidal military occupation of Poland in search of Lebensraum. Even
the most eloquent voice of humanity remained silent to these
sufferings of the Palestinians by saying: “Do not ask me, a
traumatized Jew, to be pro-Palestinian. I totally identify with
Israel and cannot go along with the leftist intellectuals who reject
it. Perhaps another generation will be free enough to criticize
Israel; I cannot.” [Elie Wiesel: “Against Silence -
The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]

I
hope the preceding plainly illustrates the gravity of your position
on “Israel's right to exist”,
and of those among your distinguished colleagues in the Academe who
also hold such positions, as the affirmation of such an abstract
“right”
leading to a genocidal implementation, becomes the 'highest order
bit' in this discourse, far beyond concerns for Campus Watch or
Academic freedom, as possible intellectual complicity in crimes
against humanity. Institutional scholars play as crucial a role in
society in generating the doctrinal motivations needed to perpetuate
“might is right”, as do honest intellectuals wearing the
distinguished mantle of Socrates, Plato, and Galileo, in teaching
truth and dispelling falsehoods from the minds of their young flock
whom they germinate with the seeds of learning, knowledge, and moral
courage. A society dominated by honest scholars instead of Hollywood
entertainment and ceaseless propaganda steeped in falsehoods and
make-beliefs, can hardly ever go wrong. In a land of universities
(over 2000 according to one Barons Guide to American colleges), the
role of the scholar is central in informing its youth – who in
turn will acquire the next reigns of the nation. This is why, instead
of directly inquiring about the growing concerns for Campus Watch
(raised in the next inquiry), I first chose to pick on this key
aspect. It is of much graver concern to both Campus Watch on the one
hand, as the fascist agents of Zionism seeking the fulfillment of
their criminal enterprise, and to the survival of the Palestinian
peoples, as well as to the liberation of the people of Iraq and to
the prevention of another war on Iran and Syria under new and more
believable fictions, on the other. It is especially grave for the
long suffering Palestinian peoples – for whom the eloquent
words of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, speak far more eloquently than
mine ever possibly can: “It is a mystery whose parallel may
only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed”.
[Elie Wiesel: “All Rivers Run to the Sea”]

Thus
please forgive me for petitioning this bold and inconvenient request
before you to briefly identify both your key claims, and your key
values regarding your statement supporting Israel. I also beg
forgiveness for the inordinate length of this email for such a small
question. However, as a humble student of truth, I am compelled to
educate myself by the tyranny of my conscience and to bring you this
verbosity, both due to my limited abilities to express myself more
succinctly, and to properly contextualize my question so that you may
provide me with a cogent and educational response which can easily
withstand all further rational scrutiny, and make manifest for all to
see, the key values that lead you to uphold your claims.

Part-III:
Some simple observations to assist you in responding to First Inquiry

Before
I conclude this first inquiry, please permit me to offer a series of
very simple and straight forward observations on reality, as if I was
residing on Mars and looking down upon the Earthlings, so that you
and your distinguished intellectual brethren who share in your
position, may also reflect upon the ironies expressed in these
observations as background context in the formulation of your cogent
responses.

As
profound academics like yourselves continue to teach about Palestine
to newer generations of students as Middle Eastern History, and as
the Jewish moralists and their academic compatriots continue to
debate the (im)morality of the conquest of Palestine in relation to
their own holocaust at the hands of the Nazis:

“Although
the Holocaust inflicted horrible injustice upon us, it did not grant
us certificate of everlasting righteousness. The murderers where
amoral; the victims were not made moral. To be moral you must behave
ethically. The test of that is daily and constant.”, [Mark
Chmiel: “Elie Wiesel and the Politics of Moral Leadership”]

and
even sometimes truthfully admit what they did:

“The
state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis
call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba -
the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a
shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to
another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the
Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven
off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially
claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it
still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded
shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through
ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is
not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain
incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by
the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped
there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew
up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be
forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the
faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the
danger of another holocaust.”, [Tanya Reinhart:
"Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948”]

and
yet, also continue to celebrate it, albeit with some mixed feelings
and occasional pangs of guilt that they are famously known for in the
Middle East - they will first plan to kill you with a
design most brutal, and then come to your funeral lamenting:
“We can forgive them for killing our children, we
cannot forgive them for making us kill theirs”
[Golda Meir].

During
this show of profound remorse, they still continue to inhabit the
same lands that they have militarily usurped under self-righteous
prerogatives that they have given themselves as god's chosen people,
and where, they weren't even born to start with:

“As
a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my
country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell
in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the
day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a
holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense
self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my
land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am
proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel
personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice,
evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab,
and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined
themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and
pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's
citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people
everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not
acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every
man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy
holidays, Israel.”, [Baruch Kimmerling: My
Holiday, Their Tragedy]

While
all this is going on with much soul searching, and in the name of
erudite scholarship in prestigious universities, the all and mighty
Zionist military machinery in Israel, operating with impunity, and
with extreme prejudice against a defenseless peoples, using the same
terror regime as they employed to create the Jewish State of Israel
in Palestine in 1948 upon their self-serving Biblical claim of Eretz
Yisrael:

'
In 1943, current Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article
entitled “Terror” for the journal of the terrorist
organization he headed (Lehi) in which he proposed to “dismiss
all the 'phobia' and babble against terror with simple, obvious
arguments.” “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition
can be used to disallow terror as a means of war,” he wrote,
and “We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned
with the national struggle.” “First and foremost, terror
is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the
circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates
in the clearest language, heard throughout the world, including by
our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war
against the occupier.” ' [Noam Chomsky: Western
State Terrorism,
Ch. 2]

“We
must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and
the cutting of all social services to the rid the Galilee of its Arab
population.” [Israel Koenig: “Koenig Memorandum”]

“We
should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim to smash Lebanon,
Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem
regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish
a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion,
eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move
on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai.” [David
Ben-Gurion, 1948]

“We
must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return
... The old will die and the young will forget.” [David
Ben-Gurion, 1948]

“We
declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one
centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will
understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians
come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we
have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will
be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”
[Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the IDF: “New York Times 14
April 1983”]

“We
have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live
here as slaves” [Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the
Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October
1983]

The
effects of this terror regime is also subsequently and openly
acknowledged without hesitation – the word “chutzpah”
of course is also Jewish:

“If
I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel.
It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it
to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There
has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that
their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen
their country. Why would they accept that?” [David Ben
Gurion – Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The
Jewish Paradox), 121.]

“Jewish
villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even
know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because
geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the
Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of
Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the
place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman.
There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a
former Arab population.” [Moshe Dayan; Haaretz, April 4,
1969]

Even
as we speak, today in the year 2005, it continues to achieve their
oft stated single minded nefarious aim of conquest “From
the Nile to the Euphrates”
by “waging war by way of deception”.
Albeit all of the preceding is now well documented public
information known to all and sundry, the world watches silently as
innocent Palestinians are kept under a sustained barbaric siege on
their own lands unheard of even in the Nazi Concentration camps.

It
must surely not have escaped the notice of any honest learned
observer that the sustained persecution served upon the Palestinians
Peoples over their own Palestine far outpaces the sufferings imposed
upon the Jews by the Nazis as horrendous and as genocidal as these
obviously were – no multiple generations of the Jews grew up
and died in the Nazi concentration camps – it was a generation
existent at a single epoch for 4-5 years that miserably suffered at
the hands of their barbaric tormenters, and then it was mercifully
over for them. But these same Jews who cringe at the mere word Nazis,
and use this appellation to adorn all their enemies who even dare
challenge them on their monumental crimes against other human beings,
now routinely visit upon their own defenseless victims in Palestine
the techniques of “Polish ghetto warfare”, military
persecution, arbitrary beatings and jailings, getting
them to oppress their own*,
destruction of homes and villages, systematic displacement of peoples
into refugee camps, checkpoints
at every town and village**,
sewing the seeds
of corruption among them and supporting their inept and corrupt
leaderships to control their resistance on the Jews' behalf***,
compelling them to sign meaningless
peace accords as treaties****
between unequal
partners****
that has only brought the weaker side more lost territories and the
obscene
apartheid wall*****,
and the art of systematic ethnic cleansing learned from their former
tormenters – which now has lasted for over 57 years. The
Zionist Jews have destroyed multiple generations of young and old
Palestinians over half century of oppression in more ways than just
their physical destruction, they have also tried to snuff out their
history, their culture, their records, and their rich heritage as old
as the Jews' themselves, and there is still no end in sight to their
misery. Why is the world not morally culpable of crimes against
humanity for their uncourageous silence and inaction to come to the
rescue of the Palestinians? Are these beleaguered peoples less than
human beings? Why is the American citizen supporting his Government
by paying taxes that generously fill Israel's coffers, not culpable
for this oppression that they are indirectly funding with their own
hard earned monies? How will they each claim innocence in front of
the Judge? Why is this momentous calamity befalling the Palestinians
any less than “one of Sinai when something was
revealed”?

For
the child who is deliberately shot in the eye or has their head blown
off while sitting in his/her classroom in the squalor of the refugee
camps by the self-righteous yamaka-wearing twenty-two year old Jewish
soldier with an American made arsenal, what does it matter to the
child if his/her death came so willfully and remorselessly as if
killing a cockroach by the Zionist Jew, or it came via being
deliberately gassed in a Nazi death camp by Eichmann*
as an undesirable sub human race to be exterminated? What does it
matter to the laments of the mother if she mourns the children and
relatives buried in a mass grave in Auschwitz, or one in Rafah and
Jenin**?
Does it matter to the residents of poor
ghettos**
if their abodes and their histories and their lives are being
systematically snuffed out in Poland,
Rafah***
Ramallah****
or Jenin**?

And
you alongside your most noble Jewish brethren in common cause argue
with a straight face before your most brilliant students on “Israel's
right to exist” on Palestinian lands in Palestinian
blood and in Palestinian dispossession, and get “evaluations”
that are “overall been good to
excellent”?

What
the mother-fck – I hasten to apologize
for that most banal capture of this tortuous state of affairs in the
most plebeian language as it always beats scholarly pedantic language
any day in expressing plain human anger and plain human values; I had
to let that explicative out in order to continue steering my rational
acumen unhindered by the spectacle of human slaughter being
sanctioned by the most virtuous high-priests of American academia and
getting “evaluations” that
are “overall been good to excellent”!

If
there is a god, be it the Hebrew god, he must be quite proud of the
accomplishments of his Chosen Peoples – just as Professor
Baruch Kimmerling, a self proclaimed leftist dissenter, and teacher
of sociology in Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel, is openly
proud in his godless yet Zionist and Jewish existence, of the
achievements of his Jewish State. I hope the intellectuals in the
academe will forgive my limited mental acuity that I am still trying
to parse what it means to be a “Jew, an atheist and a
Zionist” all at the same time – only intellectual
moralists living in Israel can perhaps unravel such intricate
conundrums and still sleep well at night, and be able to look at
themselves in the morning. As now there is no more fear of a god
anymore. Nietzsche had made sure of that in the nineteenth century
for them, as the elite prerogative of the superman* having his own
super morality beyond that of the ken of ordinary men, as no one
morality may fit all sizes of peoples - some chosen by god, others
chosen to serve the ones chosen by god, and then god died after
issuing substantial land grants to his superior and choicest peoples:

“According
to Halachah, classic Judaism's laws and customs, for example
"compassion towards others" extends to Jews only. Murder or
manslaughter is judged mildly when the perpetrator is Jewish and the
victim a non-Jew. Also according to Halachah, it is accepted for a
Jew to kill a non-Jew if he is laying claim to "eternal Jewish
land". This is what the settlers' religious organisations are
alleging. There is no corresponding law in Israel's judicial system
but in effect it influences the system as punishment of such crimes
is very mild. Israel's state terrorism, theft of land and occupation,
demolition of houses, the building of the Wall etc including the so
called 'extra-judicial killings' (assassinations), are seen by
Zionists as legitimate defence of the Nation and therefore fall under
international law - which Israel ignores [..] Buber critisised Nazism
while commending the Jewish Religion (Hassidism) but keeping quiet
about its dehumanising of non-Jews (goyim). These double standards
act to increase Israel's chauvinism and hatred of all non-Jews.”
[Lasse Wilhelmson: Zionism
as Jewish National Socialism]

“There
is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability
but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are
our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred
meters away, they are people who do not belong to our continent, to
our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.” [Moshe
Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001]

'
“The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and
racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the
inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official
definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel”
(quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY,
1960, P.156)' [Haim Cohen, former judge of the Supreme Court of
Israel, quoted by Tariq Ali: “To
be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice”]

“The
Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many
Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered
or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get
special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or
political neither Hitler not Stalin has anything on them for cruelty
or mistreatment to the under dog.” [Harry S. Truman, Diary
July 21, 1947]

Thus
with their superior morality applied to people who “do not
belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to
different galaxy”, in the prophetic words of Israel's
distinguished President himself no less, it is okay to grant the
beleaguered Palestinians the rights
to self-defense, so long as they don't kill*
the racially
superior**
Israeli civilians. And all Israeli Jewish citizens are civilians once
they take those green uniforms and dark glasses off after returning
from the West Bank and Gaza duties, and go back into their European
cities with Hebrew street names in slacks and T-shirts – a
uniform that lends support and legitimacy to the State of Israel by
paying taxes, by participating in its economy, by living on its
usurped lands, by carrying its national passport, by not having been
born there but transplanted from New York, Russia, Ukraine, India,
and Africa, and by celebrating its independence day as a joyous
holiday - all of which is the collective oppression of the
Palestinians by the Israeli citizens. Whom are the Palestinians
supposed to retaliate against? The American made tanks threatening
them in front of their homes in their own villages and shanty refugee
camps after they have been kicked out of the rest of the Israeli
confiscated lands, or the F16s flying over their heads dropping bombs
as they please, wherever they please, killing whomever they please,
men, women, children, young and old alike with extreme prejudice,
when the Palestinians posses no Army, no Air Force, no Marines, no
Navy, no major weapons, no outside assistance from the world watching
as muted spectators, and possess absolutely no
other means of self-defense but the sacrifice of their own lives?***

How
convenient, that even their last possible means of self-defense is
denied the Palestinians by calling it “terrorism”, and
waging a “war on terrorism”. A label and a war that would
make Patrick Henry laugh in his grave, for hadn't he once so boldly
proclaimed: “I know not what course others may take, as for
me, give me liberty or give me death”, and the British had
equally adorned him with such epithets and burned down the White
House? Israel's own preemptive terror and genocide in acquiring the
State of Israel and ceaselessly propagating it further is only to be
debated in moral intellectual circles in the abstract, and perhaps
loudly lamented on each Sabbath as a necessary “primal sin”
to save another “haunted persecuted people” which
“may be forgiven one day”*. [*Tanya Reinhart cited
earlier]

Which
cities did the Allies bomb during WWII and why? There were no
“uniformed” Nazi troop concentrations during the carpet
bombing of the civilian populated urban and industrial areas of
Dresden, nor were there any Japanese soldier concentrations in Tokyo,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki – none
of which were defined as war crimes by the victors of World War II.
Therefore, just to be consistent so as not to appear hypocritical in
their administration of Justice, neither was the bombing of civilians
in London by the Nazis considered a war crime. There are no
indictments on record for such crimes by the Nazis, even Nazi war
criminals like Admiral Doenitz were freed when they argued that the
Allies had done the same killings. The glaring omission of defining
the barbaric bombing of urban population centers, which the Allies
did more of than the Nazis, and dropping of the apocalyptic American
atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, as monumental war crimes against
civilians, is arguably a frightening testimony to “victor's
justice”, and “might
is right” chauvinist morality. If such heinous acts committed
while defeating an aggressive and belligerent enemy in self-defense
weren't declared war crimes using heavy bombers from the air, how are
they now a war crime using human bombers on the streets?

Furthermore,
all the barbarisms committed by the Nazis (and the Japanese) that the
Allies did not commit, were considered war crimes unilaterally by the
very definition of War Crimes crafted during the Tribunals in
Nuremberg and Tokyo, where the victors vociferously and resoundingly
denied they were purveying a “victors justice” to
the vanquished, as they proceeded to hang them: “If certain
acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether
the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not
prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which
we would not be willing to invoked against us”*, as loudly
proclaimed by Justice Robert Jackson in Nuremberg.

Thus,
initiating aggression, breaking the treaties and invading Europe was
a war crime, something the Allies did not do, and so were the
concentration camps and policies of genocide, something again the
Allies did not do. Indeed, the first act of aggression and invasion
was deemed the “supreme” crime, and the aggressor held
responsible for “all the evil that follows”, as
has been repeatedly stated here to manifestly make clear what is
“legally” and “morally” deemed a war crime
and what isn't, according to the International Law crafted by the
victorious Allies themselves, and subsequently embodied in the Geneva
Conventions. Thus carte-blanche pursuit of self-defence is made
justified, and any evil that follows from it, is laid at the feet of
the initial aggressor, as the supreme criminal who started it all. It
is kinda late to change the International law when the shoe might be
changing feet – for the imperatives of Self-Defense, especially
by the aggrieved and subjugated, cannot be constrained by any laws
anymore than the lion who is being chased by the wolves, can claim
respite.

Okay
– using the Allies' own Justice system, and the assertions of
their war crimes tribunal judge Robert Jackson that such justice must
apply regardless of who commits the crimes, the acts performed by
the Palestinians in the self-defense of their own homes, properties,
lives, and identity as a peoples, against the marauding State of
Israel and its Zionist peoples, regardless whom or what it is
perpetuated against among the occupiers and their enablers, are not a
war crime, but a legal and moral self-defense against a
belligerent*,
invading, and usurping foe hell bent on their destruction and
“transfer”
from their own continuously inhabited ancestral lands**.
Whereas, all acts of war and aggression committed by the Zionists
in the conquest of Palestine, which are akin to the crimes of the
Nazis of military conquest for territorial ambitions, regardless of
any self-serving pretexts, be it Lebensraum as German god's promise,
or Eretz Yisrael as Hebrew god's promise; land confiscation;
systematic confinement into refugee camps through continued use of
terror in subjugation and destruction of indigenous defenseless
peoples as a matter of strategic and tactical policy of displacement
through intimidation and squeezing of sources of livelihood; are a
war crime. The Zionists must therefore hang according to the very
definitions of war crimes by the WWII victorious Allies, who so
gratuitously gifted the victims of the Nazis, the Zionists' much
coveted and diabolically pre-planned “Der Judenstaat” in
Palestine.

When
the Israeli Jews deliberately keep their families and children in
Israel knowing that it is usurped lands and that they are at war with
the Palestinians over it, it is not inconceivable to argue that the
Zionists do this deliberately, using their own flesh and blood as
human shields so that they may demonstrate to the world with their
control of the American
media*,
how terrible the Palestinians are that they target Israeli civilians
when the Palestinians fight them in self-defense. Whereas the
systematic destruction of Palestinian towns and villages and the
demolishing of their homes by heavily armored Israeli military and
the almost daily creation of new refugees on their own lands is never
shown on mainstream American television. A Palestinian bomb dropped
in a densely populated market can no more distinguish a child from a
uniformed or un-uniformed soldier, than the bomb dropped from an F16
over densely populated Palestinian Areas. The death count of the
Jewish dead and properties destroyed is miniscule compared to the
loss inflicted upon the Palestinians*,
and the corresponding media coverage of the two carnage is a study
unto itself worthy of several Ph.D. thesis to say the least.

While
the Palestinians have no choice but to be there in their own homes on
their own continuously inhabited ancestral properties, the Zionist
Israelis do have a choice to not be there on usurped lands, and to
not keep their families there as human shields like the worst
cowards. The connection of Zionists
sacrificing Jewish lives for Zionism*
is an old one and is amply
documented.

Even
Herzl considered anti-Semitism targeted at his own Jewish brethren
essential in the realization of Zionism, as the Israeli Jewish
historians themselves observe:

“Herzl
regarded Zionism's triumph as inevitable, not only because life in
Europe was ever more untenable for Jews, but also because it was in
Europe's interests to rid the Jews and relived of anti-Semitism: The
European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to
promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that anti-Semitism would be
harnessed to his own Zionist-purposes." [Benny Morris:
“Righteous Victims”]

A
child's destiny is in the hands of his/her parents, and when they put
their children in danger as Zionist aggressors on another's usurped
lands, they are the criminals, not the ones who are fighting in their
own self-defense, anymore than the Allies were when they killed
millions of civilians in their non-stop bombings of civilian
infrastructures during World War II in supposed self-defense, or
dropped two atomic bombs on civilians knowing fully well that the
Japanese were going to capitulate anyway, as the historical records
show.

With
the passage of time, with newer Jewish generations continually being
born on Palestinian lands, the land theft will be a fait accompli -
which is why, contrary to all the talk of time not favoring the Jews
in Israel due to the higher birth rate of the Palestinians in their
intensely pitiable bantustans, it is actually time that is the
Zionist's best friend today despite all their deceptive denials. They
well understand, that who today dare evict a Californian, born and
raised for generations in Los Angeles on main street, the land
usurped from the Mexicans? No one today will consider it "justice"
to evict the surfing dude any more than the new Jewish generations
being born in today's Israel. If only the Zionists can hold on long
enough for enough people to be born on occupied lands, in the
settlements, in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, in Israel's pre-1967
occupied Palestinians lands, then these new Jews are people of the
soil, they are born in Palestine – no longer imported from New
York, Eastern Europe, and India. Their realities will take precedence
over the realities of the displacement of Palestinians into further
smaller and smaller “reservations”.

The
systematic resettlement of Palestine looks quite analogous to America
- and who does not know today how that land theft was accomplished
from the native American Indians? Thus with the passage of time, the
problem of the occupation of Palestine will become more intractable
to peaceful solutions that could in any way favor the cornered
Palestinians, and the Zionists will temporarily win by default. This
is entirely their game plan behind their invention of Campus Watch,
behind their control of the American media, behind their support of
the institutional scholars and the Neocons (many of whom are either
Zionists themselves or Zionist sympathizers), and the foolish
Christian Zionists whom they adroitly manipulate with visions of
Rapture. Even though Ariel Sharon is arguably justified in claiming
today:

“Every
time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do
that ... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America,
and the Americans know it” [Talking to Shimon Perez in
October 2001 as heard on Israeli radio]

The
motivation today, obviously, is to hush up their conquest and
resettlement in front of the American public.

Tomorrow,
the motivation will be to extract their pound of flesh from the
Gentiles to seek their own revenge of 3000 years of anti-Semitism. If
the Zionist Jews cannot spare even their own brethren in their
fanaticism
for Zionism
as already evidenced above, they are surely not to spare their
historical enemies once their aims are accomplished. One can already
see that the life of an ordinary Israeli Jew enjoying tremendous
subsidies, and social, health, and retirement benefits in Israel
using American tax payer gifts of Billions of dollars annually, is
far superior to what the ordinary American citizen enjoys in America
from his own Government. Indeed, the discrepancies are quite
astounding, and the lack of questioning by the uninformed American
public is not at all unexpected. Today the Zionist
control of the American public opinion
is really only to gain time by keeping the state of Israel
financially afloat and viable with American Government help.

Whereas
the American public and its conscionable students are trained in
continual obfuscation to keep them confused and chasing red herrings
of Islamic
fundamentalism*
and war
on terrorism**,
rather than learning the truth about what is happening in Israel with
the American tax payers mighty dollars. Once the reality of fait
accompli has been sewn in Palestine, there will be no further need of
Campus Watch – the political will in America will continue to
support the Jewish State as it has done so over the past half century
due to its own Hectoring Hegemonic reasons of imperial interests in
the Middle East. The two already share a lot in common in their
founding histories of settler colonization, and the power brokers in
the ruling elite of both nations share a bizarre interdependency of
mutual goals and aspirations, with the Zionist money and influence
largely controlling the destinies of almost all the elected
representatives across the board, with the appointed Cabinet also
usually either mostly Zionist, or incredibly sympathetic to them. And
perhaps the American public may yet see the Star of David finally
flying over the White House. It is already displayed very prominently
during every single Press conference from the White House, standing
solemnly next to the Old Glory, in case one hadn't noticed. Its
prominence is of little surprise when Ariel Sharon is greeted each
time with hugs as a “man of peace”. And it will be quite
acceptable to as openly discuss the complete colonization of
Palestine by Israel then, after the Palestinians have been “tamed”,
with the same kind of distant remorse, as it is okay to discuss the
colonization of America today in every sixth grader's history book,
but with little or no remorse. The Zionists in Israel are already
setting the precedence for elaborate public cleansing of their souls
for their primal sins by practicing their vacuous laments in public.
Israeli historian Benny Morris openly revealed in the Israeli press
56 years later, how unfortunate it was that 700,000
Palestinians died in 1948***.
Is that a whole lot different than what American history books now
write when openly describing small pox laden blankets deliberately
given to the indigenous American Indians to accelerate their demise?

Sure,
own up all you want, lament all you want, but after the fact, years
later when it matters not, for the suffering and the tortured are
already dead – not while it is occurring, when something can be
done to stop it. Then propaganda prevails, as it does today on every
issue surrounding Palestine, and which the institutional scholars
help perpetuate even further by not dispelling it right off the bat
among the gullible public. The fact that this is true can be seen in
the belated confessions of the Zionists themselves, even about how
they do propaganda:

“The
thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967
and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only
bluff, which was born and developed after the war.”
[Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972]

After
a fait accompli in Palestine, the only mechanism that will
subsequently dislodge the Israelis in the future then becomes quite
obvious: “Battle not with monsters lest ye become one; for
when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you” as
the author that gave moral currency to the superman's superior
morality, once so perceptively noted. Not all humanity at the
receiving end of oppression and attempting to rectify the grave
calamitous injustices purveyed upon them by the vilest of foes, are
created of the same mold as the courageous peace activist, peacefully
and unarmed, sought justice from her own people on behalf of their
beleaguered victims, and
fell victim herself at the hands of her own ruthless and barbaric
people*.
She stared the monstrous bulldozer right back in the face keeping her
Oath
of Maimonides,
defied Nietzsche, and reclaimed for her own soul for eternity, and
for her Judaic religion temporarily, a semblance of morality that has
been so deftly usurped by the Zionists for over a hundred years in
their usurpation of another's peoples rights and properties.

This
is the problem with the value proposition “might is right”.
When the once victorious ends up on the vanquished end, or the
subjugated fight-back in their self-defense with the same prejudice
that is used against them – for vengeance knows no bounds nor
recognizes kin, the mighty has left himself no recourse to plead his
case for justice when the ax falls. When the weak start getting
stronger, the lamentations of “foul” tend to carry little
wait with justice minded observers – as what goes around, comes
around multiplied several times, be that for good, or be that for the
worst crimes in human history. This unbounded revenge of the victims
shall not fail to snare, the conscionable among the mighty, who had
boldly stood up to the might and challenged their self-proclaimed
right to wreak havoc on defenseless peoples – for such is the
nature of curse that visits upon an entire society that remains
unjust. A radioactive fallout can be equally merciless to all, unless
the unjust society, as a moral imperative, remedies their injustices
instead of preparing to defend themselves against the revenge of the
victims – for there is no defense unless you kill them all whom
you have aggrieved.

Today,
that is at least 1.5 Billion Muslims – for disunited as they
may politically be today, and adroitly manipulated by the mighty in
their own favor they may also be, no one could predict that the Cold
War would end so un-perspicaciously, and neither can anyone predict
what new alliances will emerge tomorrow. The threat of Globalization
and rising disparity between the haves and the have-nots unites 4
Billion peoples of the planet together, sharing the common grievance
of exploitation and economic subjugation that has deliberately left
them in the “third world” for decades through the
machinations* of the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO memberships
that their poor nations are being forced to accept in a partnership
of the unequals. Necessity can make equally strange bed fellows as
politics. A few generations is but seconds in civilizational
lifetimes. The seeds of injustices sown in one generation by the
chauvinist old men may often be harvested in another generation by
their children and grandchildren, who would often find the situation
quite incomprehensible, and understandably so because it isn't of
their making – the makers are all dead, bequeathing their
legacies of bitter and bloody histories and unjust treaties for a new
generation to bear the brunt of their parent's transgressions. How
can one now identify the monumental criminals?

One
can see that already the founder generation of Israel is safely dead
or will soon be, while the children of Israel are bearing the Zionist
sins as well as the brunt of their punishments. Delay Justice longer,
and only more injustice will follow with more mayhem. It is quite
amazing how a defenseless peoples have given the fifth or sixth
largest military power in the world a run for their money (American
money) over the past 57 years and refuse to die away. That fact alone
should tell the rational and thoughtful Jews something – that
they could not stand up to their own oppressors in Germany, did not
fight back, dropped all their rights to self-defense as if they never
had them, and had to be rescued by a world at war. Generations of
Palestinians have lived and died under the watchful brutality of
Israeli watch towers and American made tank turrets since
1948*,
and yet refuse to surrender, refuse to crawl on their bellies to
escape. Even their small children are courageous enough to fight-back
by throwing stones at the mighty Israel tanks quite unafraid. The
entire Palestinian peoples stand alone battling the strongest
military power in the region, yet still hanging on with the same
tenacity under a meager subsistence, that the Muslims showed in
Afghanistan fighting the Soviet Union for a decade. The Jews when
they were defenseless showed the world their mettle, just as now they
show the world the barbarism of their civilization. The Palestinians
when they are defenseless are now showing the Jews their mettle. A
single Palestine today, without further delays, is now an imperative,
with the expulsion of all foreign implanted Jews, and rights restored
to all former residents of the land, Jews, Muslims, and Christians,
being the only Just solution that will ensure the peaceful survival
of the Jewish race in the future – Zionist or not. Palestine is
still big enough to accommodate all its peoples – it's not big
enough to accommodate a Jewish
State**
apartheid or not. From the planet Mars, this is what the state of
affairs on Earth appears to be. If only any sane people on Earth were
listening.

In
another world, these beleaguered Palestinian peoples would be the
epitome of bravery and courage, subject of many Hollywood movies and
epic novels glorifying their strength, endurance, and their struggle
for human justice, and their unimaginable plight would be an
immediate cause for a collective invasion by the peoples and nations
of the world to liberate the Palestinian peoples from their
misfortunes of heavenly proportions only comparable to “one
of Sinai when something was revealed”.

But
alas, alas, alas, no. Not so on this planet Earth. The financial,
(im)moral, and intellectual support of the Jews in the Diaspora
continues to flow into Israel, especially from the United States of
America. The financial, military and political support of the
Christian Zionists in America, through the world's most powerful
President, who even calls Israel's leader a “man of peace”,
continues to provide the Israelis Carte Blanche for hastening the
return of Jesus by bringing about the realization of Eretz Yisrael
for the Jews, and with it, the final Armageddon. The world's
political leaders endlessly and willfully debate this or that peace
initiatives knowing fully well what the peace will eventually be like
– of the same type as that prevailed after the colonization of
the Americas.

And
while all this goes on today under their very noses, the academe
debate “history of the
Arab-Israeli conflict” –
as a history, somehow abstractly removed from today, and not as
monumental war crimes against humanity currently in progress, a task
for which the erudite scholars, wearing the mantle of Socrates and
Plato, by the very imperatives of their profession to seek truth and
dispel falsehoods, are charged with the responsibilities to energize,
implore and exhort their students to help end the travails of
innocent peoples as the highest human imperative. For indeed what
other purpose does erudite scholarship serve but to be a gadfly? For
what other purpose does the academic seek the freedoms of academe but
to:

“constantly
disturb, .. bear witness to the misery of the world, .. be
provocative by being independent, .. should be the chief doubter of
systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their
mendacity. For this reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role
that might be assigned to him, nor can he be made to fit into any of
the histories written by the victors. .. he stands out as an irritant
wherever he is” [Vaclav Havel: “Disturbing the Peace:
A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala”, quoted by Mark Chmiel in
“Moral Leadership”]

And
for what other purpose do the Jewish scholars prolifically lament
their own misfortunes in books upon books:

“Below
his breadth, the Jew asks of is gentile neighbour: 'if you had known,
would you have cried in the face of God and man that this hideousness
must stop ...?' The Jew is a living reproach.” [George
Steiner: “Language and Silence: Essays on Language, Literature,
and the Inhuman”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]

“We
tell the story not only for the Jewish people; we tell it for the
world. Only the tale of what the world has done to our people can
save the world from a similar fate. It is very ambitious, I know. It
is arrogant. We want to save the world from destruction. And perhaps
only we can.” [Elie Wiesel, “Against Silence: The
Voices and Vision of Elie Wiesel”, quoted by Mark Chmiel]

But
instead, what do we see the academics do with their precious freedoms
as they worry about Campus Watch taking it away from them? They seek
class evaluations that have: “overall
been good to excellent”, while
arguing for: “Israel's
right to exist.”

“How
is it possible that a man so intelligent, knowledgeable, and informed
could not have been aware of the anti-Jewish laws of Vichy? The
plundering, the persecutions, the arrests, the roundups – how
could he have failed to know about them?” [Elie Wiesel, on
French president Francois Mitterand's World War II experience, And
the Sea Is Never Full, quoted by Mark Chmiel]

Replacing
Vichy with Palestine, and Jewish with Palestinians in the above
lament could arguably make today's honest intellectual and truthful
scholar stand up and answer the same questions.

[Sobbing
may be heard here if the heart is not made of stone] Upon the
conclusion of these bizarre observations of rather Kafkaesque
proportions, I am compelled once again to fall back on the weighty
words of one of the most erudite expert eyewitnesses on this subject
matter, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Director of the Holocaust Museum
in Washington DC, who so eloquently speaks for all victims for all
times residing in all the worlds in the universe in his passionate
memoirs All Rivers Run to the Sea:

“and
I still curse the killers, their accomplices the indifferent
spectators who knew and kept silent".

Even
if the inebriation of power has today made the value proposition
“might is right” ubiquitous in the settlement of the
affairs of mankind, let the future historians and judges bear witness
where each intellectual and scholar courageously stood in the
imperatives of his distinguished profession, and what role he or she
played in bringing misery, or sustenance, to the peoples.

I
thank you in advance for your generous patience in reading this long
first inquiry along with the few observations on the plight of the
Palestinians that my conscience drove me to make, but which cannot
possibly do justice to their profound misery. I made these
observations not under the presumption of such atrocities having
escaped your own knowledge, as no scholar of distinction may remain
unaware of such facts as are openly visible for all to see. As
empirical evidence of monumental crimes against humanity before a
reasonably thinking person, these facts remain incontrovertible, and
are not a mere matter of personal opinion or conjecture. I only
present them here as background material supporting my inquiry.

I
now eagerly await your own strong and clear response, and the equally
strong and clear response of your other learned compatriots in
American and Israeli Academe, so that I may educate myself with the
Occam's Razors clarity that I am certain I will surely receive from
you as teachers of truth, benefiting all in search of it.

It
is quite clear to me that you must possess some secret evidences,
moral truths, and profound ability to reason critically, that I fear
are all denied me as an ordinary human being not wrapped in the cloak
of academe scholarship and respectability. Otherwise claims from
distinguished scholars for “Israel's
right to exist”in Palestine at the barrel of
a gun makes no sense to me, for it senselessly continues to create
further animosity among the quarrelsome children of Abraham, which
may inevitably lead to a fratricidal Armageddon where there are no
winners (except for perhaps the Christian Zionists and their
illustrious moral leader, the President of the United States of
America, George W. Bush, who gets his marching orders directly from
the divine: “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck
them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and
now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”).

My
second inquiry letter into the topic of Campus Watch follows.

I
remain,

Sincerely
Yours,

a
student of all truth-tellers and falsehood repellers, grateful to my
parents and teachers for all that is truthful and factual in this
letter, and shameful of my own failings for what may have escaped it.

Zahir
Ebrahim

Founder:
Project Human Beings First – a work in progress

Truth
and Justice activist by Imperative

Computer
Architect by Profession

Postscript:
If a tiny good comes from this open letter, if
it touches the heart and mind of even a single Academic in America or
Israel leading them to reverse their position on Zionism; leading
them to stand up and courageously denounce Zionism in front of their
students with reason and logic, without regard to self-serving
interests of career and class reviews; leading them to force their
students to examine their own key value propositions in support of
their claims, and grading their work on the logic of their analysis
alone in how well their proposed values support their claims –
thus forcing a self-examination of either the values or the claims,
by either demonstrating hypocrisy, or a war criminal attitude, and
thusly training their eager young minds in how to continually avoid
both as an unqualified virtue regardless of self-interests, for these
brightest young minds are indeed the leaders of tomorrow; leading
them to publicly proclaim the curse of Zionism and exhorting the
peoples to end it; leading them to loudly renounce their citizenship
of Israel and return back to their own native lands from whence they
had come from; leading them to fully boycott Israel, and divest from
anything Israeli; then such a tiny good will surely multiply
exponentially, and in justice for both the Jews who fall victim to
their parent's fanaticism for Zionism and to the crimes of
uncourageous silence of their Jewish elders in Israel and the
Diaspora, and the Palestinians. Future is what is important today –
for history is but a responsibility for the future. But those who
control the present control the past, and those who control the past
control the future (Orwell).

N.B.The reference links embedded in the text are current today,
but may not remain so in the future. In order to preserve those
references, it may be prudent to download the contents of the links
for easy access in the future.

The
author, a justice activist, formerly a Silicon Valley systems
architect (see engineering patents at
http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents
), founded Project Humanbeingsfirst.org in the aftermath of 9/11. He
was, mercifully, most imperfectly educated in the United States of
America, which might explain how he escaped the fate of
“likkha-parrha-jahils” mass produced from its vast
manufacturing consent complex with all his neurons still intact, and
still firing on all cylinders. Bio at http://zahirebrahim.org
; Email: humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
; Verbatim reproduction
license at http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright
.

Reprint License

All
material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with
full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety,
unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity,
provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part
of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its
main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license
violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images,
quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on
non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research
use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes
against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly
commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external
material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair
use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you
are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your
request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents
in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the
documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You
are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from
other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.